Premium
Research on scientific journals: Implications for editors and authors
Author(s) -
Armstrong J. Scott
Publication year - 1982
Publication title -
journal of forecasting
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.543
H-Index - 59
eISSN - 1099-131X
pISSN - 0277-6693
DOI - 10.1002/for.3980010109
Subject(s) - objectivity (philosophy) , competence (human resources) , open science , engineering ethics , computer science , psychology , data science , epistemology , social psychology , engineering , philosophy , physics , astronomy
A review of editorial policies of leading journals and of research relevant to scientific journals revealed conflicts between‘science’and‘scientists’. Owing to these conflicts, papers are often weak on objectivity and replicability. Furthermore, papers often fall short on importance, competence, intelligibility, or efficiency. Suggestions were made for editorial policies such as: (1) structured guidelines for referees, (2) open peer review, (3) blind reviews, and (4) full disclosure of data and method. Of major importance, an author's‘Note to Referees’(describing the hypotheses and design, but not the results) was suggested to improve the objectivity of the ratings of importance and competence. Also, recommendations are made to authors for improving contributions to science (such as the use of multiple hypotheses) and for promoting their careers (such as using complex methods and obtuse writing).